[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OWB-1293?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16888064#comment-16888064
 ] 

Romain Manni-Bucau commented on OWB-1293:
-----------------------------------------

[~manovotn] fact is jetty still changes the internals regularly vs CDI vendors 
are quite stable on the integration side. The integration always had been 
specific and therefore required to play with modules/dependencies whereas 
having a single jetty-cdi drops that need and since CDI 2 it is possible. 
Currently the jetty integration is very close to work (the few details i posted 
in my last response) and I still think it makes sense to host it there. If not 
- and here i would let the majority win - we need to 1. drop jetty-cdi module, 
2. pick a minimum version in owb we want to support and just move forward. Now 
I'm still voting to let jetty-cdi work OOTB and avoid to integrate weld, 
openwebbeans, and others each time with their own speed.

> Update Jetty integration prior to Jetty-10 release
> --------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: OWB-1293
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OWB-1293
>             Project: OpenWebBeans
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: Interceptor and Decorators
>            Reporter: Greg Wilkins
>            Priority: Major
>
> The current jetty integration relies on exposing private jetty APIs so a 
> jetty Decorator can be registered.   This is fragile and requires different 
> APIs for the upcoming jetty-10 release.
> Instead, Jetty is developing a mechanism where a object with a decorator 
> signature can be set as a context attribute and it will be introspected and 
> dynamically registered as a decorator without any API dependencies.
> This is currently being developed in 
> [https://github.com/eclipse/jetty.project/pull/3838] and an integration with 
> Weld is at [https://github.com/weld/core/pull/1926] 
> Feedback is sought from the OpenWebBeans team on the approach and then we'd 
> like to collaborate to make a similar integration.
>  
>  
>  



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.14#76016)

Reply via email to